The Gaming Den

Elennsar: I am totally done. I've attempted to have a reasonable discussion with you. Hell, I've even pointed out the exact logical disconnects in your argument that people are causing literally everyone to openly mock your point of view.

But seriously, you've just got the same tired arguments over and over again. They never held water and they don't hold water now. You can froth and rage all you want, but I'm done even rising to you because your relentless trolling is honestly tiresome.

-Username17

Elennsar wrote:Define "impossible to play". Is it really that hard to say "Oh. Half-orcs have an Int penalty. Wizards need Int." means = "Better avoid being a wizard." for someone of sufficient intelligence to recognize those two facts?

How about "you can't play it"? Besides, a non-retarded game might, instead of reveling in the existance of build traps/hoping people don't fall on them instead of, you know, fixing them, just try to make the weird choices that are intended to exist not worse than the common ones.

Elennsar wrote:As for "won't dictate"...that's taste. I don't mind all elves feeling that they should use bows...the reason for the +1 is that they're good archers.

But in that sort of thing, I'd rather make it so that there are a variety of things..."+1 with any one of the following weapons." and listing the ones the race uses most often. Some dwarves prefer hammers, some axes. Not many sword using dwarves (assuming the traditional mold, which as stated is not the one I want to use for the dwarves I'm creating. But in say, Middle-Earth, I'd go with it. Its just not how I would set up their culture and preferences.)

Yeah, that is a matter of taste. But let's make it very clear which taste we're talking about: the taste for crushing conceptual diversity. The taste for ensuring that all members of a race have constrained choices. That is the taste we're discussing. While (almost, at least) everyone does it to some extent, I'm fairly sure I want something as simple as dwarves using swords and elves using axes not to be retarded.

Elennsar wrote:Which brings up a point. No race with a LA of 0 should have any modifiers different than +0 from their race that are greater than can be compensated for by a feat unless this is a severe weakness (in which case some other solution needs to be available if at all possible...if Dwarves have really rotten eyesight, they will be trying to invent glasses)

If you have to spend a feat to compensate, it is a weakness. And having weaknesses is severe. Period.

Elennsar wrote:Why the feth is insisting that elves should make good archer-rangers and that dwarves should make bad archer-rangers the opposite of "elves should be good here but dwarves should do SOMETHING ELSE that is equally as good" contrary to anything I've argued?

That may mean "dwarves in the fighter class", because fighters do something rangers don't.

What's your problem with just understanding that here, you're saying dwarves should always be fighters rather than rangers?

And you can say "fuck" here. You aren't doing a good job of being humorous or pretending to be light-hearted by using a substitute.

Congradulations. You have failed to understand my point on your own or request clarification that would assist in understanding it.


Frank: The relentless "NO! DWARVES CANNOT EVER BE LESS THAN OPTIMAL AT A CHOICE THEY GET! EVER!" is equally tiresome.

If a dwarf will never be bad at something, or never good at anything, then unless there's some flavor to being a dwarf that no one else can have, being a dwarf means nothing.

So if you can't play in a game where elves actually have an advantage at things elves are supposed to do well and dwarves at their things and its good because those seperate things are equally useful (even if not useful for the same class/es), then how do you manage to make anyone get different abilities at all?

Do you ensure that "You can have +2 from your race, but then your max ranks in the skill are 2 less." or something like that?

If not, then you wind up with elves making Perception checks better than humans (+0) and dwarves making them worse than humans (-2).

OH NO.

Really, if that's impossible to balance, its impossible to have any negative features at all, which would suck. Horribly.

How about "you can't play it"? Besides, a non-retarded game might, instead of reveling in the existance of build traps/hoping people don't fall on them instead of, you know, fixing them, just try to make the weird choices that are intended to exist not worse than the common ones.

Weird=/= weak. It may be weird to have a dwarven wizard, but he'd be fine at it. So would the half elf, if half elves didn't suck.

Saying "you can't play it even though it would be perfectly viable" is lame. If dwarves make sucky rangers, then if you want to play a sucky ranger you go for the "races that don't do well at this class" list.

I seriously don't get how you can see "Half orcs have -2 to Intelligence." and "wizards need Intelligence." and not see "half orcs being wizards is a bad idea."

Now, half-elves sound like they're not penalized, but since none of their features are any good on their own or for being wizards, they wind up being so.

If you have to spend a feat to compensate, it is a weakness. And having weaknesses is severe. Period.

Only if no one else has any. If everyone has a -2 somewhere or the equivalant (-2 to AC =/= -2 to two skills, for instance), where your -2 is only severe if its something particularly important.

What's your problem with just understanding that here, you're saying dwarves should always be fighters rather than rangers?

And you can say "fuck" here. You aren't doing a good job of being humorous or pretending to be light-hearted by using a substitute.

The fact that I disagree that that anything less than the races with bonuses that specifically assist being rangers make bad rangers.

Other than that, the point is that if you're inferior at X (which relates to what one class does), but good at Y (which relates to another class) and both classes are equally important, it balances out.

So dwarves don't become rangers. Much better to have that be because dwarves don't do it well than because there is a spell that prevents any dwarf from deciding to be a ranger.

As for fuck vs. feth. I like the sound of feth, which is why I use it instead of fuck some of the time. Its a quirk, reading anything into it besides that is missing one of Freud's better observations.

Draco_Argentum wrote:For the love of hatred, we know the system will not be perfect when implemented. Nobody is claiming otherwise. We all know a certain race is going to be the best ranger when the system is written. What we are saying is that its not okay to design a race to be better on purpose. Since this is a theoretical discussion that means "all races are equal" even though when put into practice we will miss that goal by some amount.

In short, stop conflating designed in power differences with accidental ones. You do not have a point and are just muddying the waters on purpose.

On the contrary, some people, including those who I quoted earlier (such as Crissa and IGTN, not to call you two out or anything) did seem to claim exactly that, which is why I saw the waters as muddy, and was asking for clarification. If the position you describe there is, in fact, what they actually meant, then thank you: you have actually been helpful in explaining something that the folks who kept talking in absolutes all the time had failed to make clear, and I have no argument with this position at all.

For someone supposedly acting all logical, your casual dismissal of actual problems as "they're minor problems, 'oh no'" sure sounds mildly amusing. Of course, as long as it doesn't touch any threads where something useful's happening.

And no, there isn't any flavor you can get only by being a dwarf. Not even the flavor of being a dwarf, imagine that. And that line of argument, besides being factually wrong, was a strawman anyway: you can be mechanically different without being mechanically worse. And no, not "not worse in the sense that if you were of some other class you wouldn't suck" - I mean actually not worse at whatever class you chose from the available options. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. And anything meant to be worse stays in the game at best as a GM resource.

So what do we have here.

Unheld Extreme #1: Race should determine if you're capable of being level appropriate or not. Being a kobold is grossly inferior, period. Sucker!

Unheld Extreme #2: Race should have no impact on what you do anywhere.

Me: A race should have areas it does better than other races (some of which will influence class picks), areas it does worse (some of which will influence class picks), and areas that it is just different.

Others: No strengths/weaknesses, just differences within each class.

Anything I overlooked?

For someone supposedly acting all logical, your casual dismissal of actual problems as "they're minor problems, 'oh no'" sure sounds mildly amusing. Of course, as long as it doesn't touch any threads where something useful's happening.

And no, there isn't any flavor you can get only by being a dwarf. Not even the flavor of being a dwarf, imagine that. And that line of argument, besides being factually wrong, was a strawman anyway: you can be mechanically different without being mechanically worse. And no, not "not worse in the sense that if you were of some other class you wouldn't suck" - I mean actually not worse at whatever class you chose from the available options. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. And anything meant to be worse stays in the game at best as a GM resource.

I have minor problems. That doesn't make me overall less able to survive in the world. So do you. Ditto.

Now, if those problems couldn't be overcome, or could only be overcome with great sacrifice, that would be a problem.

In this century, that I need glasses to see clearly past ten to twenty feet is not a major disadvantage.

As for the flavor: So what does it mean to be a dwarf? You can do anything you want as a dwarf as a human...you don't even get a speciality that humans don't get?

Unfun.

And again, having it be "you're not optimal = you suck" is also unfun.

It doesn't particularly make dwarves good monks that they get a bonus to Constitution, but I don't hear any monks wailing about having too high a Con score.

A Race can have strengths and weaknesses, which are determined largely by class availability.

If Orcs are allowed to be sorcerers and elves are allowed to be sorcerers, wizards, druids, and bards, then clearly elves are "better at magic."

Also, it's okay for different races to be good at different aspects of a class, but *not* for those differences to influence class choice. A Dwarf Fighter, Dwarf Ranger, Elf Fighter, and Elf Ranger must all be equally good, although ideally all four would be mechanically distinct from the three. If you can't make one of the options both distinct and balanced, it should stop existing. other

...but *not* for those differences to influence class choice.

Why not?

Because then you've deliberately chosen to include options that suck.

Nobody said Dwarf Rangers have to be in the game. You can have Rangers be an elf-only thing, or whatever. Heck, you can go back to having Dwarf and Elf be classes unto themselves.

What you can't do is say, "Dwarves are allowed to be rangers, but they'll be underpowered"

Because then you're *letting people choose to be underpowered*

Second verse same as the first a little bit louder and a little bit worse!!!!

Wonder how long this Fail will go on...

Okay, let me make sure I'm not misinterepting.

Should you not let people who take a vow of poverty (small letters, I'm not refering to the feat) or who are otherwise poor in a game because they'll have less stuff?

If me having say, less stuff is compensated for by having an equivalant bonus somewhere else, that bonus may or may not be equally useful for all possible other choices.

"By forsaking material possessions you grow spiritually stronger." is a lot more useful when "spiritually strong" is related to what you do than when it isn't, and not all people do things where it relates equally.

I call bullshit. You can't compare mechanical options with things that aren't mechanical options.

Now, there is room for argument about *how* idiot-proof the system has to be. I'm pretty much okay with, say, it being possible to make a wizard who sucks because you epically failed your spell selection. But only because that's likely to be really complicated. Choosing magic missile over grease shouldn't be a trap, but I can understand that wanting Grease, Identify and Magic Missile, Floating Disk to be viable characters might open the door to a nonviable Identify/Floating Disk build.

So yes, there are probably decisions that will lead to your character sucking. But race/class combo definitely shouldn't be one.

Elennsar wrote:Unheld Extreme #1: Race should determine if you're capable of being level appropriate or not. Being a kobold is grossly inferior, period. Sucker!

It's even funnier then usual, because you have explicitly stated that this is your opinion before.

angelfromanotherpin wrote:

Elennsar wrote:If I am wrong, prove it. Insulting me is a great way to make me think that you have no rational arguement against my point.

You don't have a point. You have a schizophrenic ramble which contradicts itself whenever you find it convenient. There's nothing there to argue against.

You are now the second person ever I have put on ignore.

Wait, that's an option?

Hey, maybe as he finally wears everyone down with his inability to admit fault about anything, we'll all ignore him and he'll go away and declare victory somewhere else and we'll be free.

EDIT: I cannot seem to find any specific ignore option. Does this mean I'm actually going to have to exercise self restraint?

Why. Not?

Why does every race have to do every class well or have the DM drive out of the game anyone who asks if they can play a class that their race does poorly?

Personally, I would like to see every race have the following listed:

Best at: These classes rely more heavily on Dexterity, and you're playing a race with a Dexterity bonus, so sweet. You also get good "if you're an elf, you get ____" abilities. Meanwhile, a dwarf also gets good stuff there, but his lack of a Dexterity bonus means he's in category two.
Good at: Things the race's bonuses assist and it has good "if you're a elf, on the other hand, you get ___" abilities." Most classes are here.
Bad at: Things your race is inferior to the level appropriate standard.

It's even funnier then usual, because you have explicitly stated that this is your opinion before.

Only in connection with 'and kobolds are not a race available for PCs to begin with, ever". So if that's not the case, then there are things it isn't.

However, you may still suck as a kobold fighter because the fighter doesn't benefit very much from kobold strengths and does suffer from kobold weaknesses.

Elennsar, I'm hoping you'll listen to me as one of the people who hasn't violently argued with you.

What I'm understanding here is, it's acceptable for races to have mechanical differences, if and only if, those differences:

1) Are balanced equally in stats that matter (+2 Str =/= +2 Cha), and
2) Do not cripple a race in playing a class that they're allowed to play.

Rangers of different races need not be mechanically identical. Indeed, they shouldn't. However, they must be equal in power. Allowing anything less is leaving the "bridge out" sign off the road after the bridge was destroyed.

An elf ranger may get rangery elfy abilities. Fine. An elf ranger may be better at spotting that a dwarf ranger. Fine, as long as the dwarf ranger gets an equivalent ability.

The ability must be something that is equal in power to the elf's ability, and is useful for a ranger. If the elf gets kewl ranger powarz and the dwarf gets kewl fightar powarz, the dwarf is objectively a worse ranger and the elf is objectively a worse fighter. Therefore, dwarf rangers and elf fighters are being unfairly penalized (or, if you rather, elf ranger and dwarf fighters are getting unfair advantages).

If an elf gets +1 to [ranger skill A], the dwarf must get +1 to [ranger skill B] that the elf does not. This doesn't make these two characters identical in any way - individual player choice in skills, feats, weapons, etc., etc. will go a long way torwards that. It does ensure that both are operating at the same power level, assuming equal build skills, and that neither is being penalized for taking a valid option.

It's fine for one PC to have a slight advantage in one specific area over another PC (example: I have Spot +13, you have Spot +15). However, assuming that both PCs fill the same role (two rangers), neither should be overall better than the other, unless one is of a higher level.

If you have a higher Spot than I, and we're both 5th-level rangers, the explanation had better be that

~I spend my skill points elsewhere (player choice),
~You took Skill Focus [Spot] (allocation of limited resources)
~I get an equally powerful, equally relevant bonus somewhere else (racial mechanics). For instance, I might have a higher Hide than you, or Survival, or some damn thing.

Equal =/= identical.

---

For the record, I think Crissa is overstating her point. One PC having a +1 bonus realtive to another in a majority of cases is bade. A +1 bonus in limited instances isn't crippling, and if the situation is reversed in other instances, that's acceptable.

Elennsar wrote:Why the feth is insisting that elves should make good archer-rangers and that dwarves should make bad archer-rangers the opposite of "elves should be good here but dwarves should do SOMETHING ELSE that is equally as good" contrary to anything I've argued?

That may mean "dwarves in the fighter class", because fighters do something rangers don't.

But whatever that something else is, just because it doesn't benefit a particular class for dwarves to be awesome with mechanical things doesn't mean that being awesome with mechanical things shouldn't be equally effective at "adventurer".

My arguement is and remains the following:
1: Elves should make good archer rangers (or whatever).

2: Dwarves should make bad archer rangers (or whatever).

3: Dwarves do something as well as elves do archer ranger at something equally useful and productive that is a different role.

4: Elves are inferior at that (or another) something the same way dwarves are inferior archer rangers.

Not "Elven rangers are better than dwarven characters". Feth no.

Combat is literally 90% of all D&D. 95% of 4e D&D, which is what the topic was. So if the dwarf character is bad at the one thing that is the overwhelming majority of the game, they are bad at that class.

No nebulous something else will ever save that.

And, I have to say, using someone else's made up swear words is... precious. And cute. In the manner of a 5 year old girl thats going to grow up to be a crack addicted whore, gangbanged and murdered by the time she's 17.

Elennsar wrote:Congratulations. You have failed to understand my point on your own or request clarification that would assist in understanding it.

Congratulations for seemingly failing to even contemplate the possibility that it might be you who fail at something like that.

Elennsar wrote:Frank: The relentless "NO! DWARVES CANNOT EVER BE LESS THAN OPTIMAL AT A CHOICE THEY GET! EVER!" is equally tiresome.

Ideally things wouldn't be any better or worse than balanced. So the fact that a build can be optimal is a mistake. It happens because humans make mistakes, but humans who think that's good are especially retarded. Play styles, of course, have to be better or worse, since that's kinda what we call "player input".

Elennsar wrote:Saying "you can't play it even though it would be perfectly viable" is lame. If dwarves make sucky rangers, then if you want to play a sucky ranger you go for the "races that don't do well at this class" list.

No. You might make a lower level character. You might pick mechanical elements and mix them in deliberately bad ways. You ought not to demand that the game has an imbalance built into it.

Elennsar wrote:I seriously don't get how you can see "Half orcs have -2 to Intelligence." and "wizards need Intelligence." and not see "half orcs being wizards is a bad idea."

Orc wizards are nominally allowed. People might have orc wizard concepts. There's no reason you should strive for that character to be worse if you're allowing it.

Elennsar wrote:Now, half-elves sound like they're not penalized, but since none of their features are any good on their own or for being wizards, they wind up being so.

Congratulations for contradicting yourself. A big argument of yours seemed to be that people can recognize unbalanced choices, and choose them only on purpose (of being unbalanced). Guess what, not always. To echo Frank: the more power variance you allow, the more stuff will fall outside even that alllowed variance. That's a fvcking mathematical fact.

Elennsar wrote:The fact that I disagree that that anything less than the races with bonuses that specifically assist being rangers make bad rangers.

If they don't have something that's equivalent for rangers to those bonuses, they are unbalanced.

Elennsar wrote:Other than that, the point is that if you're inferior at X (which relates to what one class does), but good at Y (which relates to another class) and both classes are equally important, it balances out.

No. It specifically doesn't balance out for characters on the classes you don't care about enough to either balance them or even just disallow them. That's retarded.

Elennsar wrote:So dwarves don't become rangers. Much better to have that be because dwarves don't do it well than because there is a spell that prevents any dwarf from deciding to be a ranger.

No setting reasons, perhaps? Also, "dwarves don't become rangers, period", if you want that, is an entirely different thing from "I reserve myself the right to allow dawrven rangers and then punish them".

Elennsar wrote:As for fuck vs. feth. I like the sound of feth, which is why I use it instead of fuck some of the time. Its a quirk, reading anything into it besides that is missing one of Freud's better observations.

That's crap. If you think something's random, it's just because you don't have enough info. Anyway, do what you want on that front - that's not the actual retardation.

---

Extreme #1 is held by some actual people (none currently participating here AFAICT, but they do exist). Other than that, your summary overlooks nothing, I guess, except for omitting the explanations of each opinion. Though I wonder why did you need to make that summary at all.

My minor problems would hopefully hinder me at my role to the same extent that my party fellows are hindered at their roles by their minor problems. If those extents are different, either we chalk that to "an imbalance minor enough that people fail to notice it" (which's something many people have had no problems with admitting will happen in the abstracted game even - presumably way more IRL), or we actually ought to treat each other as superior/inferior as appropriate (which may well include not including them in the doing of important stuff).

Being worse than others sucks. Especially if you have any concept of honor and might care about being as useful as others.

Flavor: the Dwarven Ledger. Enough said.

---

Voss: fvck, I technically use someone else's made-up swear word! Should I be worried?

Elennsar, I'm hoping you'll listen to me as one of the people who hasn't violently argued with you.

What I'm understanding here is, it's acceptable for races to have mechanical differences, if and only if, those differences:

1) Are balanced equally in stats that matter (+2 Str =/= +2 Cha), and
2) Do not cripple a race in playing a class that they're allowed to play.

Agreed and agreed. However, +2 to Charisma will help a Charisma dependent class more than a nonCharisma dependent class.

And "less good than" and "crippled at" are not the same thing.

Thusly...

If you have a higher Spot than I, and we're both 5th-level rangers, the explanation had better be that

~I spend my skill points elsewhere (player choice),
~You took Skill Focus [Spot] (allocation of limited resources)
~I get an equally powerful, equally relevant bonus somewhere else (racial mechanics). For instance, I might have a higher Hide than you, or Survival, or some damn thing.

How about a bonus at disabling traps?

Assuming that's equally powerful and equally relevant to me being better able to spot ambushes.

However, "guy who is a master of the wilds" is something the Survival bonus guy does better.

And last I heard, "master of the wilds" was the first mental image to mind when thinking of "ranger". Not "only". Just first.

And until indicated otherwise, I'm trusting that we're talking past each other at worst, because you appear to be one of the more civil people in discussion here (not just this thread, in the other threads I've read recently).

So, we need to work on making sense of what is a "not so good here" vs. "not capable at the Adventurer Thing".

Congratulations for seemingly failing to even contemplate the possibility that it might be you who fail at something like that.

I'm very aware that I'm very possibly failing to communicate on my end, however.

Orc wizards are nominally allowed. People might have orc wizard concepts. There's no reason you should strive for that character to be worse if you're allowing it.

There's no reason that those concepts have to be supported by what orcs in this setting can or will actually do, however. And presumably, unless orcs are all convinced that wizardry is a bad idea (talk about racial uniformity of opinion), you can just add "but he's an oddball" and negate the entire point of "but orcs don't become wizards".

Congratulations for contradicting yourself. A big argument of yours seemed to be that people can recognize unbalanced choices, and choose them only on purpose (of being unbalanced). Guess what, not always.

"Low Int race + Int dependent class = bad choice." is not hard. "These bonuses seem okay." when they're deliebrately designed to be not okay (but sneakily) is.

No setting reasons, perhaps? Also, "dwarves don't become rangers, period", if you want that, is an entirely different thing from "I reserve myself the right to allow dawrven rangers and then punish them".

The point is, if dwarves don't become rangers, there is a reason why not. And "Because the dwarven race all has a shared mindlink where anyone who thinks about becoming a ranger is rickrolled." is not an option without rickrolling.

Though I wonder why did you need to make that summary at all.

Just to keep my thoughts straight on what is and isn't being said and make sure we're all agreeing on what is said (whether we agree to any given statement, knowing what statements are made).

My minor problems would hopefully hinder me at my role to the same extent that my party fellows are hindered at their roles by their minor problems. If those extents are different, either we chalk that to "an imbalance minor enough that people fail to notice it" (which's something many people have had no problems with admitting will happen in the abstracted game even - presumably way more IRL), or we actually ought to treat each other as superior/inferior as appropriate (which may well include not including them in the doing of important stuff).

Assuming they're minor drawbacks, the underlined text is the case.

If they're severe enough to mean "bad at ____", they're not minor drawbacks.

And major drawbacks ought to be major.

But little quirks ought to balance out to at most a minor limitation...for instance, if you have -1 with "bows", you find something that isn't a bow and works about as well and we get the dwarven arbalest.

Now a question I want to check.

It is okay for an elf to be a better scout and tracker. All agree.

It is not okay to become a better ranger.

Rangers (among other things) scout and track. What is the difference between "good at this class all over" and "good at one element", assuming the resulting class-race is not able to make anyone else useless?

Being a really awesome duelist (in Lot5R) doesn't translate into "better than an okay courtier" because a courtier has skills that the duelist doesn't (school techniques, to be precise).

Elennsar wrote:I'm very aware that I'm very possibly failing to communicate on my end, however.

Still not contemplating that you might be having a great success at communicating crap ideas.

Elennsar wrote:There's no reason that those concepts have to be supported by what orcs in this setting can or will actually do, however. And presumably, unless orcs are all convinced that wizardry is a bad idea (talk about racial uniformity of opinion), you can just add "but he's an oddball" and negate the entire point of "but orcs don't become wizards".

If they aren't supported, they aren't allowed. Oddballs shouldn't pay power for thematic divergence while being allowed; neither should anything else.

Elennsar wrote:"Low Int race + Int dependent class = bad choice." is not hard. "These bonuses seem okay." when they're deliebrately designed to be not okay (but sneakily) is.

Not even addressing my point. If there are imbalances that are hard to see, your argument that people're gonna choose weak stuff only when they wanna be weak goes outta the window.

Elennsar wrote:The point is, if dwarves don't become rangers, there is a reason why not. And "Because the dwarven race all has a shared mindlink where anyone who thinks about becoming a ranger is rickrolled." is not an option without rickrolling.

If you can't think of non-mechanical setting reasons for the rarity of some class, you aren't worth my words. I'd be happy if I was informed of that if it's the case.

Elennsar wrote:Assuming they're minor drawbacks, the underlined text is the case.

If they're severe enough to mean "bad at ____", they're not minor drawbacks.

And major drawbacks ought to be major.

But little quirks ought to balance out to at most a minor limitation...for instance, if you have -1 with "bows", you find something that isn't a bow and works about as well and we get the dwarven arbalest.

A minor imbalance can be visible. Then it should be eliminated. That it's not major only changes its priority in the case of any majors existing - they go first - but not the fact that it should.

Elennsar wrote:Now a question I want to check.

It is okay for an elf to be a better scout and tracker. All agree.

It is not okay to become a better ranger.

Rangers (among other things) scout and track. What is the difference between "good at this class all over" and "good at one element", assuming the resulting class-race is not able to make anyone else useless?

Frank actually made a list of rangerly activity that's substantially larger than that. Go read it if you need.

If they aren't supported, they aren't allowed. Oddballs shouldn't pay power for thematic divergence while being allowed; neither should anything else.

No, but nor should "odd" be just as easy as "typical". If it was, the "typical" would include odd.

I am assuming that odd is outside the realm of 90% (or whatever we define an overwhelming majority as being)...that majority may be three things or one, but "things that aren't in one of those (or that in particular) thing/s."

Not even addressing my point. If there are imbalances that are hard to see, your argument that people're gonna choose weak stuff only when they wanna be weak goes outta the window.

Being unable to write clearly is an error of writing, but not game design. Being unable to write good things to begin with is an error of game design.

If you can't think of non-mechanical setting reasons for the rarity of some class, you aren't worth my words. I'd be happy if I was informed of that if it's the case.

I can think of several flavor reasons, but a mechanical limitation should be at least vaguely supported by mechanics. If dwarves grow up in a manaphobic society, resisting that will be hard (and those who would find it easy have long since suffered whatever the consequences for heresy, for want of a better word, is).

A minor imbalance can be visible. Then it should be eliminated. That it's not major only changes its priority in the case of any majors existing - they go first - but not the fact that it should.

A minor imbalance, assuming both of us have an equally minor imbalance, is not a sign either of us is underpowered or even that we both are, however.

Frank actually made a list of rangerly activity that's substantially larger than that. Go read it if you need.

And Frank's list is the defining definition of Ranger that we are all obligated to uphold?

Frank is a good designer, I don't recall anyone giving him authority to dictate the meaning of game terms whenever game discussion comes up.

One thing I've been meaning to ask. How much of what makes you able to do level appropriate things needs to be from your class (as in, for rangers, the "ranger power list") and how much needs to be "anyone needs to be able to be level appropriate at (at least some of) the following whatever class they do"?

In say, Legend of the Five Rings, you get school techniques from your school which all need to be level appropriate, but there are no class skills in any sense like how D&D uses the term at all.

If D&D did that, then I would say that "elves get better techniques!" is bogus, but a school that relied on archery skills and swift movement would be better for a race that has a knack for those things, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Elennsar wrote:No, but nor should "odd" be just as easy as "typical". If it was, the "typical" would include odd.

Odd =/= hard. Playable character => balanced (as perfectly as possible, not less than that for any reason).

Elennsar wrote:Being unable to write clearly is an error of writing, but not game design. Being unable to write good things to begin with is an error of game design.

Right. If you had merely addressed my point crappily, I wouldn't have said you didn't. Hence, you might fit better in the second.

Elennsar wrote:I can think of several flavor reasons, but a mechanical limitation should be at least vaguely supported by mechanics. If dwarves grow up in a manaphobic society, resisting that will be hard (and those who would find it easy have long since suffered whatever the consequences for heresy, for want of a better word, is).

Race X doesn't have class Y isn't mechanical - it's what the setting allows to exist. So you need no justification other than flavor. And if flavor makes you want something to be possible, then mechanics should follow suit and ensure balance.

Elennsar wrote:A minor imbalance, assuming both of us have an equally minor imbalance, is not a sign either of us is underpowered or even that we both are, however.

If we both have a drawback we don't have an imbalance with regards to each other. And by "we", I mean "the characters, any", not the notion of the race as its own entity.

Elennsar wrote:And Frank's list is the defining definition of Ranger that we are all obligated to uphold?

Frank is a good designer, I don't recall anyone giving him authority to dictate the meaning of game terms whenever game discussion comes up.

Give me a list that isn't crap from a game design standpoint and we're talking. Namely, yours consists of 2 tasks, that suspiciously are both elven areas of expertise. Looks a lot like circular logic for "elves are good rangers because LotR says so". His was composed of several elements that could be excelled at by various races, and I dare say was also a more complete picture in terms of source material as well.

Odd =/= hard.

No, but obviously Something makes it odd, and if that's social pressure, than social pressure ought to have an influence that you can't say "I ignore." and it disappears.

"I resist." may not be bad, but it ought to be "interesting".

Right. If you had merely addressed my point crappily, I wouldn't have said you didn't. Hence, you might fit better in the second.

I might. So far I'm suspecting the former, because I know I have issues with it, and seeing how well that assumption bears up.

Race X doesn't have class Y isn't mechanical - it's what the setting allows to exist. So you need no justification other than flavor. And if flavor makes you want something to be possible, then mechanics should follow suit and ensure balance.

The problem is that race X not having class Y should be for a reason other than "because I don't want them to".

If we both have a drawback we don't have an imbalance with regards to each other. And by "we", I mean "the characters, any", not the notion of the race as its own entity.

You having a drawback at archer ranger and me with TWF ranger, assuming both are balanced (And useful) would not be an imbalance, but it would mean I'm a better archer. Is this a problem?

Give me a list that isn't crap from a game design standpoint and we're talking. Namely, yours consists of 2 tasks, that suspiciously are both elven areas of expertise. Looks a lot like circular logic for "elves are good rangers because LotR says so". His was composed of several elements that could be excelled at by various races, and I dare say was also a more complete picture in terms of source material as well.

My point is, Frank's list=/= The One True Ranger List. Not that his list is a bad list or my statement/s were a good list.

Nor does two things that rangers use a lot translate into "the only two things rangers use".

I can think of the following for rangers.

Good at surviving in the wild.
Good at exploiting the advantages of the wild (never fight a forest savvy ranger in the forest if you can help it)
Keen senses.
Sneaky.
Able to endure fatigue and disease and poison and such with less resources than others or with only what they can find in the wild or both. Able to guide/assist others who lack their skills
Able to deal with animals and beasts if that's an issue.

Seperating #1 and #3 because "disease resistant" doesn't necessarily mean "can find food and shelter easily", even though both are "surviving".

If I sit down and play a dwarven ranger and my friend plays an elven warrior in the same game, we need to be equally good at adventuring. Not at whatever is officially The Ranger Schtick, but my dwarven ranger and his elven ranger need to average out across the board. I don't care how it happens, at least in this debate, but it does need to happen. I don't give a crap that there's a guy out in California who has a dwarven fighter who's better than his friends elven fighter. That in no way repairs the fact that I am sitting down at a table and playing a strictly inferior character to other characters at the table.

Now Elennsar has fallen into the trap of class == job in world, as well.

How many fallacies can we have in one thread by one user?

The choice of class is something that sticks with the character. If it's an option, it should be a viable, balanced, and in its way optimal. If it is not optimal, it should not be a PC option.

You are free to make NPCs higher level (better) at some classes. Or NPCs take or not take certain classes. Or PCs take (or not take) certain classes. The world of imagination is totally malleable (you don't even need a rickroll reason for why dwarves aren't rangers; though if you want, you can have that one. It's imagination.)

If an Elven Ranger gets +1 to his bow and a Dwarven Ranger gets a +1 to his axe, it'd better, via game mechanics, even out between them. Maybe a thrown axe does more damage on average, or cuts down obstacles better. I dunno. I also don't care - I just care that those two bonuses work out equally for both PLAYER CHARACTER OPTIONS.

Player Characters options - aside from fiddly stuff like spells and stats someone already mentioned how far one could go - need to be not just viable, but OPTIMAL. If they're not, you're not sitting down to the same game between two randomly created characters. This is because the players are there, every game, investing in their character.

If you have a game like NetHack, where you're making a new character frequently, and part of the challenge is overcoming imbalance... Then it's okay. But that's one of two reasons NetHack is a single player game!

-Crissa